Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay bepleasedtovacatethestayinlANo.2/02018inCrlPNo.245112018onthefile of High Court dated 291312018- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Niranian ReddyforSriN,NaveenKumar,AdvocatesforthePetitionersandSmt.Shalini Saxena. learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for and Srr T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel' respondent No.1 Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd representing Sri A respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION N0.2451 OF 2018 ORDER Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel' representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners' Smt. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing leamed Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T Niranjan Reddy' learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A'Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy' leamed counsel appearing lor 2nd respondent'

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ol'the Code ol Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, 'the CrPC') to quash the proceedings inCr.No.45 of 2016dated27'04'2016 pendingon thc llle ot'P.S. Koutala, Kowtala Mandal, Aditabad District' acts of the case:- F

3. 'I'he petitioners herein are A' 1, A'2 and A 4' -l hc o I'tertce s allegcd against the petitioners herein are uuder Sections '106' 'tl0' l'17 and 504, l2O-B and 294 (b) read with 34 of tndian Pcnai ('otic' iti(r0 ( tbr short, ' the IPC'). On the complaint dated 2l '04'2016' toclged h1 1"'r respondent, P.S. Kowtala have registered a casc in Cr'No'-li ol' 2016 against the petitioners herein and A.3. ) KL.J Crl.P No 2451 of20l6 .-

4. As per the cornplaint dated27.04.2016 of 2,d respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner and A.3 are as that it is in the business of construction of multi storeyed buildings, colonies, complexes and housing projects etc. On 05.0g.2009, Sri Ramaiah, represented M/s. Sri Chennakesava Constructions (for short, .CK constructions') approached 2',.r respondent, requested to execute the contract which was awarded to them by the l" petitioner. On

09.07.2008, there was a contract agreement entered between the 1., petitioner and CK Construcrions lor carrying on works of pranahitha Chevella Lifi lrrigation Schcrne (for short, ,PCLIS,) and excavation of gravity canal including t.rmation of embankments, construction of Sluices Cross Massonn, and Cross Drainage works. lining etc. I,r petitioner conrpany was awarded with the contract for pCLIS _ Package I detailed investigation and preparation of Design and Drawings. []srirnates. [.anci l)lan Schedules and Excavation of gravity canal including tbrmation ol' entbankments, constructions of CM & CD works. lining etc. courplete fbr the reach from KM 0.500 to KM

15.000 fiorn Iunrrnidi lleui (\.) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off lrom the rieht flank of the proposed Barrage across River pranahita near I'urnrnidi l{etti (r,) Koutlrala (M) Adilabad District (pkg. No. l) J KL..] Crl.P. No.245t of20l8 for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). l't petitioner had agreed to give the above works of contracts to CK constructions on back to back basis with total responsibility for execution of the contract in toto' As CK constnrctions, could not carry on the works awarded to them' they represented by Sri. Ramaiah entered into a contract with 2'd respondent. ln pursuance to the agreemenL,2"d respondent has been carrying on the works since 2009. I't petitioner knows very welI that 2"'r respondent is carrying on the works in the place of CK constructions. l'1 petitioner is well aware that 2nd respondent has entered into an agreement with CK constructions' The personnel of l " petitioner were visiting the site and constantly supervising the works carried out by 2"'r respondent. l$ petitioner was guiding 2"'r respondent in carrying on the works and further informing with regard to the payment schedule. Part of the payments were released in t-a r our of 2"d respondent. In [act, 2nd respondent has to receive a sum of [i's']0 Crores, frotn l" petitioner and CK constructions' 2nd respondent has executed the rvork and incurred total expenditure of Rs'90 Crorcs irt executing the work. l" petitioner has received total amount but in collusion r.r'ith CK constructions, are not paying the amounts to l"'r 4 KI-.J Crl P No 2l5l oflol8 a respondent. They have entered into conspiracy, evad ing the payments of the 2nd respondent even after repeated requests to CK constructions to pay the amount but it was later discovered that CK consrructions did not receive the payments. 2nd respondent enquired with [" petitioner who srated that they have already paid the amounts to CK constructions. 2'd respondent apprehend that both 1., petitioner ar-rd CK constructions have entered into a criminal conspiracy in evading payments lor the works done by 2nd respondent.

5. -[he Managing Partner of CK constructions expired on

13.04.20 I6. On 17.04.2016, I't petitioner forcibly trespassed into rhe site. deployed an excavator and started damaging the rvork whicl-r was alrcady execured by 2nd respondent. When 2nd respondent ob.jectcd fbr the same. the staff' of l't petitioner including petitioner \o. j ahLrsccl thern. I '' petitioner, in collusion with CK construcrions, trie d to dispossess the' l"'j respondent from the site. 2nd respondcnt has invcsted lruge amounts, men and machinery for the site, still thclc is much work pcnding, the same has to be executed by 2nd rcspon<lc rrt in tt:rms ol' the agreernent entered between 2"'l respondent and ['K constructions rvithin the agreed timelines. There is dishonest irrrcr-rriorr 5 K I--J Crl.P No245lof20lE on the part of the Petitioners and other accused right from the lnceptlon.

6.Itisfurtherallegedthatknowingprettywellthatthe Managing Partner of CK constructions had expired' I't petitioner has resorted to itlegal tactics with 2nd respondent to carry on the work with an evil intention to evade the payments of Rs'20 Crores' The accused has a modus operandi of making to execute the work with the expenditure incurred by it and in not paying the entire amounts to them. Further, the ['' petitioner did not allow the 2nd respondent to carry on the works. 7'Thesaidactsoftheaccusedinnotpayingtheamountsafter receiving the same ti'om the Government would amount to ernbezzlement ol lurrds, and further not allowing them to carry on the *.orks *,ould amount to cheating. When 2nd respondent was executing the work, 3"r petitioner site Engineer of l't petitioner and his stalf trespassed into the sitc. w'hen 2"d respondent objected' they stated that they are doing the sanre' on the instructions of their Chairman i'e' 2nr pctitioner. They have abused staff of 2nd respondent' Thus' the pctitioners along with the other accused trespassed into the site with 6 KI-.J Crl.P No 2451 of20l8 ( mala fide intention and caused injury to the staff and cause damage to the machinery belongs to the 2nd respondent.

8. In furtherance of the above allegations, 2',d respondent has lodged the said complaint with the police, Koutala who, in tum, registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein and A.3.

9. Challenging the proceedings in the said crime, petitioners filed the presenr criminal petition.

10. 2"'r respondent {ited counter contending.as lbllows:_ i. The pcririoners filed rhe present petition by rvay of suppression of fbcts. ii. The contents of the complaint constitute the aloresaid of,tences. iii. The petitioners are aware of the contract entered by and betwc'crr 2'r respondent and CK constructions and execution of- rvork bv the 2"'r respondent, in terms of the said contract. iv. 2"d respondent has lurnished bank guarantees in terms of the agreenrcnt bctrveen the 2nd respondent and CK constructions. 1., petitioner has nracle correspondence with regard to the same. !'. There are ser eral lactual aspects which the investigating Otftcer has to considcr during the course of investigation. r i. Scuttling inv.esrigarirrn at the threshold is impernrissible. 7 KL.J Cd.P No245lof20lt I t. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, leamed Setrior Counsel' representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for petitioners contend as follows:- i. The contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences. ii. 1'r petitioner is not aware of the agreement between the 2nd respondent and CK constructions. iii. = There is no privity of contract betwecn l" petitioner and 2nd respondent. As per the principat agreement, l" petitioner has executed an agreement with CK constructions' There is no :. provision in the said agreement to enter sub contract by CK constructions in favour of 2"'r respottdcnt with regard to the subject work. iv. The disputes between the pctitioncrs and 2nd respondent are civil in nature, v. 2nd respondent has lodged thc said conrplaint only for wrongful galn. wl. On consideration of the said aspects only, this Court granted stay of investigation including arrcst of the petitioners for a 8 KL.J Crl.P No245lof20l8 a' period of four (4) weeks vide order dated2g.0Z.202lg and same was extended thereafter. Thus, continuation ol the proceedings in the subject crime against the petitioners is an abuse ofprocess of law. 2"d petitioner is chairman and 3'd petitioner is site Engineer of l.r petitioner company. 'I'hey are not vicariously Iiable. lx. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunit Bharti rVlittal vs. CBIr I2. Whereas, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao. learned public prosecutor and Sri T.Niran jan Reddl', Ieamed Senior Counsel representing Sri A.Vijay Bhasker Rcddy. learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, would contend thal the proceedinlls arc ar crime stage. The Investigating Officer still has to considcr several aspects in the course of rnvesttgat lon

13. Srnt. Shalini Saxena. leamed counsel contend that the Investigating Officcr has alrcaclv completed investigation. Since there is change ol'Invesrigating Ot1icer, rhe shslgg sheet is not filed. Ttre AIR 2015 s(- e2J 9 Kt_ r Crl.P No 245lof20l8 present Investigating Officer will file charge sheet shortly. The contentions raised by the petitioners herein are triable aspects and the petitioners have to take the said defence before the trial court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same.

14. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel would contend that there is, suppression of facts by the petitioners. petitioners were aware that 2'd respondent and CK constructions have cntered into an agreement to execute the subject work, 2nd respondent has furnished bank guarantees to the Govemment on behalf of the petitioner No. I , staff of petitioner No. I company used to visit site, advise 2"r respondent in execution of work etc. Even then, in the present petition, petitioners contended that they are not aware ol thc agreement between CK constructions and 2nd respondent. Thus, therc is suppression o[ facts by the petitioner and that they have nor approached this Court with clean hands and they have obtainerl interim order by way of suppression of facts. Therefore, the present Criminal Petition shall be liable to be dismissed only on the said ground. '[he contents of the complaint constitute the offences allcged against the petitioner herein. ./ ./ t0 KL,J Crl.P. No.245l of20l8 a

15. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissible' He has placed reliance on the principle laid down bv the Apex Court in Tulsi Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, Union of India vs' B.R.Bajaj3, M.Krishnan vs. Vijay Singha, State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoos, Sanappa Reddy Maheedhar vs. State of AP6' Padal Venkata Rama Redtly vs. Kovvur Satyanarayana Reddy?, Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Mohd. Siraj6, K.Jagadish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S.e and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtraro

16. With the afbresaid submissions, both of them sought to dismiss the present crirninal petition. FINDINGS AND ANAI,YSIS:-

17. The aloresaid rival subrnissions would reveal that 1s petitioner has entercd into an agreement with the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradcsh throuslt Inigation and Cornnrand Area Development has issued tender rxrtiflcation dated 0-1 .09 2007 for the works of '] (1962) SCC Onlrrrc S( 9a ' (relq) z scc:,. n(2ool)8scc6"rj lzoos; u scc :.ur 5 u (2007) 13 scc t6s '1zotr; r: scc a rr 1zo lal r+ scc :: ' (2o2ql 14 scc' ijl ro (202 t)\lg scc l{) I 8 Kl- I Crl.P. No 2451 of 20la 'PCILS' Package I - detailed investigation and preparation of Design and Drawings, Estimates, Land Plan Schedules and Excavation of gravity canal including formation of embankments' constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM 15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking olf from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. l) for value of Rs. 229,14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only). 1't petitioner company participated in the said tenders and stood as successful bidder. It has entered into an agreement dated 06.06.2008 with CK constructions. The value olthe contract is Rs.229.14 Crores.

18. It is also not in dispute that the I't petitioner has entered into sub contract with CK Constructions/A.3 dated 09.06.2008 on the spccitic terms and conditions mentioned therein.

19. According to ihe l"d respondent, it has entered into sub contract agreement with CK constructions (back to back basis) dated

05.OtJ.2009 on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein l " petitioner is aware ol'the same. [t has executed works in terms of the sub contract to the tune of Rs.90 Crores. Staffof the I't petitioner used .\ / l2 KLJ (rl I' No.245l of20l8 a to advise the 2nd respondent by visiting the site regularly. 2nd respondent has also provided 9 bank guarantees in favour of Superintending Engineer, I & CADD, medium lrrigation Projects Circle, Bellampally, Adilabad District, all dated 74.02.2010. UCO bank has also issued letter 08.08.20 l3 for retention of money under the said bank guarantees. l'r petitioner has addressed a letter dated

22.02.2010 requesting the petitioners to procure adequate bank guarantees. Therefore, now the l" petitioner cannot plead ignorance with regard to agreement entered by 2"d respondent with CK Constructions and execution of work by 2"d responde nt pursuant to the said agreement, it amounts to suppression of facts.

20. It is relevant to nore rhat in paraeraph No.l4 olthe present criminal petition, the petitioners have conrended that the l" petitioner did not have any intbrmatiorr or idea about the irlpugned contract agreement entered into bet\veen the l'"1 respondent and CK constructions. Even if it is to br- assumed. but not adntitted that the averment made by the 2"'r respondenr that CK c()nstructions took permission from the l'' pctitioner. as the sub lettinu shall not create contract between the l'' pctitioner and CK ('onstnrctions. t3 KL.J Crl P. No.245l of20l8

21. In ground No.XI, the petitionen further contended that the petitioner's company has no knowledge about the alleged sub-contract entered into between CK Constructions and 2nd respondent' There is no privity of contract between the I " petitioner and 2nd respondent'

22. tn the light ofthe aloresaid contentions, it is relevant to note that the 1" petitioner company has addressed a letter dated 22'02'2010 requesting the 2"d respondent to obtain drawings and designs at the earliest. In the said letter, l'' petitioner has referred to the agreement dated 06.06.2008 entered by and between the I't petitioner and Govemment, sub contract agreement dated 09'06'2008 by and between l" petitioner and CK constructions' I't petitioner has categorically stated that it was understood that the above work is being handlcd by 2"'r respondent on back to back basis from CK constructions. l'' petitioner has also requested the 2nd respondent to procure adequatc men, material and machinery for early completion of the said work. [t has turther requested the 2nd respondent to procure adequate bank guarantees in thc name of the client and give so that they submit the same to the client to draw mobilization advance and the same rvill be transt-erred to 2'"r respondent through cK Constructit,ns to ilnprove thc progress at site' l4 K L,J Crl P No.lJi I of20l8 -

23. In the said letter, it is further stated that as seen at site good efforts are being put up by 2"d respondent and I.t petitioner are satisfied. It will also suppofi in the event of any necessity in all aspects.

24. It is also apt to note that 2nd respondent has furnished bank guarantees Nos. 2ll0IGFIN0003 10, 2il0IGFIN0006 10, 2l l0IGFIN000210, 2lr0IGFIN0005t0. 2r l0tGFIN000ll0, 2l l0IGFIN0007l0, 21l0IGFrN0008t0, 2l t0tGFrN0004l0, 2l l0IGFIN0009|O, 2l42IGFlN0039l3 ( tbr rerention of rnoney), all dated,24.02.2010 in favour of Superintendenr Engineer, Medium Inigation projects Circle, Bellampally, Adilabad I)istrict, fbr an amount of Rs.l Crore each The sarne rvas obtaine,d Ii.orn LICO bank, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent has also filetl lcttcr issued by UCO bank i.e. bank guarantees fbr registrarion rnoney dared 08.08.2013. 2nd respondent has also filcd copies ol.bills reIecting back to back payments. perusal ol.the sarne rvoukl reveal that the same are in respect ofthe sub contract.

25. As discussed supra, the atbresaid contract is lirr the lrurpose of for preparation of designs, drawings estimates, lan<l plan schedules and excavation of gravit-y canal inclucling [jl:. consrructiorr ol- slu ices, l5 KL,J Crl.P No.245lof20lt cross masonry and cross drainage works lining etc. complete for the reach from formation of embankments, constructions of CM & CD works, lining etc. complete for the reach from KM 0.500 to KM

15.000 from Tummidi Hetti (v) to Karjavelli (v) which is taking off from the right flank of the proposed Barrage across River Pranahita near Tummidi Hetti (v) Kouthala (M) Adilabad District (Pkg. No. 1) for value of Rs. 229, 14,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred and twenty nine crores and fourteen lakhs only).

26. According to the 2'd respondent, it has commenced execution of the work at the site since 2009. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that they are not aware of the same. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioners that thcy are not aware of the sub contract entered between the 2nd respondent and CK Constructions is contrary to record and untenable. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition by way of suppression of the atbresaid fact. Only on the said ground, the present petition is liable to be disnrissed. t6 KL.,, Crl.P No.245tof20t8 a

27. In M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (p) Ltd vs State Of Biharrl, the Apex Court held that as a general rule. suppression ofa material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant fiom obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need ol. the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. Similar view has been taken in G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan12, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of Indiarr. lrracing reriance on the said judgments, the Apex Court in the Auroville Foundation vs Natasha Storeyra, in paragraph No.9 held as follou,s:_

9. It is no more res integra that the Doctrinc ol,..C lean hands and non-suppression of material lhcts,. is applicahic rrith full lorce Io every proceedings before an1 .iurJicial lirrunr. l.he party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction ol.rlie Iligh Coun under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrjia rrrust cor_nc \r.ith clean hands and disclose all s6rr.a, and nraterial lacts in hts Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice ol.rlrc (.ourr rhat rhc petition has been guilty ol supprcssion o[ rrrarerial and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands. sLrch c()nducr must be seriously viewed by the courts as the ahusc ot.process of law and the petition must be disrnissed on rhat ground alone rvithout entering into the merits ol thc rna er. ' ArR loo4 sc 2121 ( 100814 SCC [7 (lrl07) 8 lfc 149 C ivil Appeat No. IJ65 I ot I 7.03.2025 t7 KL,.I Crl P No.245l of20l8

28. As discussed supra, in the present case' there is misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the petitioners that they are not aware of the agreement entered by and between 2nd respondent and CK Constructions, despite letter dated 24'02'2010 and bankguarantees furnished by 2nd respondent'

29. As discussed supra, on the complaint dated 22'04 2016' the Police Kowtala, has registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein and A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447 arrd 504, l2O-B and )94 (b) read with 3 of IPC The said sections are extracted below :-

405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner cntrttsted rvith property' or with any dominion over property, dishoncstll rn isappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or rlishonestl; usos or disposcs of that property in violation of any direction ol lart' prcscribing thc mode in whichsuchtrustis'tobedischargcd.trrolanllegalcontract,express or implied, which he has madc touching thc discharge of such trust' or willfully suffers any other per5tln <rr [r-t t )' cotntnits "crirninal breach of trust". 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust'- Whoevercommitscriminalbreachoftrustshallbepunishedwith imprisonment of either dcscription li)r a term rvhictr rnal extend to three years. or with fine. or rrith both' 1 8 K{-.J Crl P No245lot20l8 a. 4I5. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall rgtain any property. or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do axvthing which he rvould not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ,.cheat,, 420. Cheating and dishonestl/ indxsing delivery ot property._ Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, aher or destroy the rvholc or any part of a valuable security, or anything rvhich is signed or scaled, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. shall be punished with imprisonment of eithcr descrrprion tbr a terrn nhich may extend to seven years, and shall also he Iiable to linc.

4.17. Punishment for criminal trespas5._ Whocver commits criminal trespass shall be pLrnished r.r,ith inrprisonment of either description for a term which rnay c\tcncJ to thrcc montlts, or with fine which may extend to five hundrcd rupecs. or rr ith both.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation._ \\ hocver commils, the offence of criminal intimidation shali be punrslred rvith inrprisonment of either description for a term which ma_\ exten.l to t\\o \ cirrs. or \ ith fine, or with both; 29{ (b} of I pC: t9 KL.J arlP No745lof20lt Anyone rvho sings, recites, or utters any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near any public place with imprisonment up to three months, a fine, or both.

30. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharamrs, Dr. Lakshman vs. State of Karnatakar6, the Apex Court held that de lvery perty to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". The ingredients to constitute an offence ofcheating are as follows: i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person b,v deceiving him; ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionalh induced to dcliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain an-v property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionalh induced ro do ()r to omil to <io anything which he would not do or omit if hc ',r e rc nor sLr decci\cd: and iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above. rhe acr ()r txuission should r-u one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harnl to thc pcrson induccd in body, mind, reputation or property. t'2or9 6 scc 739 " 2(]199SCC677 20' KL.J Crl.P. No.245loll20l8 f A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another pe6on to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

31. In Tulsiram (supra), the Apex Court held that proving of one elemeltt is sulficient to attract the said offences. 3 2. As discussed supra, in the complaint, 2nd respondent specificallv alleged that the petitioners in cotlusion with CK constructions induced the 2nd respondent.

33. with regard to the offence under Section 447 of IPC, it is the specitic contention of the 2nd respondent that in pursuance of the sub contract dated 05.08,2009, CK constructions entrusted execution of atbresaid work in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore, 2''d respondenr has been executed the said works in tenns of the said sub contract agrcelnent on the site. l't petitioner is arvare of the same [.]r'en then, thel'have trespassed into the said site. l.l. With regard to the offence under Section 506 and 294(b) It'C. it is relcvant to note that in the complaint dated 27'04.2016, there is specitic allcgation against petitioners 2 ar,Ld' 3 that 3'd petitioner is the sitc Engineers who tried to dispossess the staff of the 2"'' respondent r.r ith ulterior motive and also abused them with ulte rior 2t hL,J Crl.P No 24i I of20lE rnotive and he also abused the staff of the 2nd respondent on

17.04.2016. Staff of the l't petitioner trespassed into the site, they deployed an excavator, started damaging the works executed by 2"d respondent. Thus, there are specific allegations against the 3'd petitioner.

35. It is also specifically atleged by 2nd respondent that 2"d petitioner is the Chairman of the 1" petitioner company and 3'd petitioner and other staff of the l't petitioner resorted to the aforesaid illegal acts on the instructions and at the instance of the 2''d petitioner. Thus, the same amounts to criminal intimidation and criminal trespass.

36. As discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which the lnvestigating Officer has to consider during the course of investigation. The petitioners, have filed principal agrcement dated

06.06.2OOE entered between the l't petitioner and erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh represented by lrrigation and CAD. Even according to the petitioners, 1't petitioner has entered into an agreement with the ('K constructions, on 09.06.2008. As per the said agrcenlent, whclher CK constructions can enter into sub contract with thc 2"'r respondent )) KL.J Ci.P. No.245l of20lE a' dated 05.08.2009 is a factual aspect which the In'estigating Officer has to consider.

37. As discussed supra, admittedly, 2"d respondent has fumished the aforesaid bank guarantees and it has been executing the said works. The letter dated 22.02-2010 addressed by l't petitioner in favour of 2nd respondent would reveal the said fact' Vide the aforesaid letter, l'1 petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to procure men and machinery, bank guarantees for execution of the said work' In fact' l't petitioner expressed its readiness to do needful in execution of the said project to the 2"'r respondent. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot contend that the)' are not aware of the said work executed by 2nd respondent. Thus, there are several factual aspects which the lnvestigating Otllcer has to consider during the course of investigation. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissihlc as held by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructu re Private Limited (supra).

38. In this regard. the fbllort'ing paragraphs of Somjeet Mallick v. State of .Iharkhand'' are relevant: 'iuo:at ro scc ::, 23 KL.J Crl.P N0245lof20l8

15. Beforc wc Drocecd to test the correctne ss of the d that at t e stas€ imDugned orde r. we must bear in of decidin s whether a criminal oroceeding or FIR. as hold or the case mav be. is to be uashed at the th or the oolice reDort or not. the allesations in the the comolaint. includinp the materials collected durins investi ation or inqui rv. as the case mav be. rre to be taken at their face valuesoastod etermin e whether a tisation or Droceed tng asainst prima facie case for the accused . as the case mav be. is made out. The co[ectness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offenc.e, ur ess the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingrcdients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact rvhich may be inferred ftom the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct ofthe accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused. dcspite taking possession ofthe truck on hire, has failed to pa1 hire charges for months together, while making false pnrmises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out u hich may require investigation. In such circumstances, iI thc FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nolhing short of an act which thwads a legitimate irrr cstigation.

17. It is trire law that FIR is nof an encyc lo aedia of all imoutations. Therefo . to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cosnizable offence what is to bc looked at is not anY omNslon ln the accusations but thc gravamen of the accusations contained therein to VA ble offcnce lind out whether . orima facie some c has been committed or not. At this stape. the court is not reouircd to ascertain as to which snecific offence has been committed.

18. lt is onlv aftcr inves tieatio n. at the timc of fra ming charge. when materials collectcd durins invcstisation are before the court. the court has to drau' an oninion as to for commNslon of which offcnce thc 24 KL,J crt P No.245l of20l8 r. a dishoncst conduct on accused should be tried Prior to that. if sfied. the court mav even discharse the accus ed. Thus. rvhen the e Dart of the FIR all if suooorted bv mate rials. would accused which disclosc commission of a cosnr,z Nble e. investisation should not be thwarted bv ou shins lhe FIR a

19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become inlructuous on submission of a police repo( under Section 173(2)CrPC. but when a police report tns been submitted. particularl)' when there is no sta)' on the investigation. lhe courl nrLrst apply its mind to the materials submitted in supporl ol the police report beforc taking a call whether thc FIR and consequcntial proceedings should be quashed or not. More so. when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective o{'a dishonesl conduct of the aocused.

39. Sri T.Niranian Reddy. learned Senior Counsel rePresenting Sri A. Vijaya Bhaskar Rcddl . leamcd counsdl appearing for 2"d respondent, placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the lollou'ing judgnrents and the same are discussed as follows:- i) ln Neeharika (supra). the Apex Coun held that courts should not interfere with F-lRs or investigations under Section 482 CrPC unless the casc falls under the Bhajon ZaI principles. Interim orders like "no coercive steps" should not be routine and must be justified with reasons. -[ hc (-ourt emphasized the investigating agency's statutory right to probe cogni26ble offences. This case z5 KL.J Crl P No 24tl of20lt strongly discourages pre-trial interference' It supports continuation of proceedings where a prima facie case exists' ii) In K. Jagadish (supra), The Apex Court reiterated that even if a registered document exists and civil remedies are available' criminal proceedings can proceed when coercion or fraud is alleged' It upheld that civil and criminal liabilities can coexist on the same -l-he complainant's version' including coercion and post- set of facts. dated cheques, created a case for trial. Thus, quashing FIRs solely because a civil suit is pending, is impermissibte' This judgment suppotls non-quashing in commercial fraud cases' iii) In Mosiruddin Munshi (supra)' the Apex Court upheld crirninal proceedirrgs rvhere the complainant was duped into paying money under talse prornises of property transfer' It ruled that when a transac tion i n vol ves del iberate misrepresentation and fraud' criminal law is attracted. F.ven if a civil suit for sPecific performance is possible. that doesn't negate criminal intent' Hence' the case supports FIR contirruation rn contract-based fraud scenarios' It aligns with th.-- present matter irrvolving alleged conspiracy and dishonesty' ) 26 KL,J Crl.P No.245l of20l8 a iv) In Sanapareddy Maheedhar (supra), the Apex Court ruled that a Magistrate can direct further investigation even if police submit a ctosure report, especially where procedural irregularities exist. It reinforced the principle that.iudicial scrutiny is necessary il'the investigation appears influenced or insufficient. The decision emphasized that factual disputes and allegations must be properly probed. This case supports a deeper investigation in complex or sensitive matters. It is relevant to the instant case where the charge sheet is pending due to officer change. v) In Saroj Kumar Sahoo (supra) l.he Colrr.t held that at the FIR stage, courts should not evaluarc evidence in detail but only examine whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence. [t cautioned against prematurclv quashing criminal proceedings. Where the complaint reflects elcrlents ol'dcccption, courts must allow full investigation. This reinrbrces th.t trr.eshord scrutiny under Section 482 should not stifle prosecution. It supports the contentions in the present case that factual matters must be tested during trial. vi) In M. Krishnan (supra), crinrinal proceedings were wrongly quashed by the [{igh c'.um duc 1.., rhc e\istence of a civil dispute. The Supreme Court clarified that s€rious altegations like -l' 27 KL,J Crl.P. No 2451 of 201E forgery and breach o[ trust invoke criminal liability irrespective of civil remedies. The decision upholds the complainant's right to pursue both forums. It stresses that premature interference hampers justice. It is relevant to the cases where the complaint includes cheating and conspiracy as in the present case' vii) In B.R. Bajaj (supra), the case dealt with public servants andallegationsofmisuseof.positioninthecontextoflotteries.The Court held that procedural safeguards and proper investigation are crucial before quashing FIRs' Although it emphasized judicial restraint, its primary locus was on public trust and administrative conduct. Hence, its rele'uance to private contractual disputes is marginal. It offers general guidance on Section 482 but is less applicable to the facts at hand' viii). In Tulsi Ram (supra), it is the landmark ruling which clarified that lbr the ol'tencc of cheating under Section 420 IPC' it's sufficient to prove wronglul gain or loss, not both' It emphasized that dishonest intention at thc tirne o[ the act is key. This interpretation \ helps sustain charges in contplcx fraud or conspiracy cases' It directly supports lraming ol charges in the current matter where loss to the , I I I I i I I I I ,i 28 ( rlP No.245lot20t8 o KLJ respondent and gain to the accused are alleged. Thus, the case backs the complainant's allegations.

40. It is the specific contention of Smt. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing leamed public prosecutor thar the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation. In view ol change of the Investigating Officer, the present investigating Officer could not file the charge sheet. He will file the charge sheet shortlv.

41. In the Iight of the aforesaid discussion, rhis (.ourt is of the view that prima facie, contents of the cornplainr dated 27.04.2016 constitute the aforesaid offences against the peritioners and other accused. However, on consideration of the statenrents o{'thc witnesses on completion of investigation, it is lor the ln."esrigaring Otficer either to delete or add any provisions ol larv and also clrop charge sheet against any of the accused. Therefbre, scuttling rhe invcstrgation at the threshold is impermissible.

42. Therefore, the present criminal petition is clisrnissed. Consequently, miscellaneous peritions pendinq. il' any, in this ^ . - Criminal Petition shall stand close<i. Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// \ \!ecnor oFFrcER

1. The Kovvtala Police station, Kowtala Mandat, Adilabad District 2. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kuma, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri A._Viiaya Bhaskar Reddy, AivocatA topUCl 4. Two CCs to The Public prosecutor, High Court for the stat6 of Telangana al . -tfL s Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:11412Q25 ORDER CRLP.No.2451 ol2018 I ( ) ? t) o( -1HE SI 4re ??JUI M DFs.,r ,TC'' r--(\ . CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED 6\6vl